receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
Install with Tessl CLI
npx tessl i github:obra/superpowers --skill receiving-code-review80
Does it follow best practices?
If you maintain this skill, you can automatically optimize it using the tessl CLI to improve its score:
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./path/to/skillValidation for skill structure
Discovery
40%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This description clearly identifies WHEN to use the skill but fails to explain WHAT the skill actually does. It focuses heavily on philosophy and anti-patterns ('not performative agreement') rather than concrete capabilities. The description reads more like guidance on an approach than a skill that performs specific actions.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Analyzes code review feedback for technical validity, verifies suggestions against existing codebase patterns, and identifies potentially problematic recommendations'
Expand trigger terms to include common variations like 'PR comments', 'review comments', 'suggested changes', 'reviewer suggestions', 'merge request feedback'
Reframe the philosophical guidance ('technical rigor', 'not performative agreement') as capability statements in third person, e.g., 'Critically evaluates feedback before implementation'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description lacks concrete actions - it describes an attitude ('technical rigor and verification') and what NOT to do ('not performative agreement or blind implementation') but never specifies what the skill actually DOES (e.g., 'analyzes feedback validity', 'verifies suggestions against codebase'). | 1 / 3 |
Completeness | The 'when' is explicitly stated ('Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions'), but the 'what' is essentially missing - it describes the approach/philosophy but not the actual capabilities or actions the skill performs. | 2 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Contains some relevant keywords like 'code review feedback', 'implementing suggestions', and 'technically questionable', but misses common variations users might say like 'PR comments', 'review comments', 'suggested changes', or 'reviewer feedback'. | 2 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The focus on code review feedback provides some distinctiveness, but the vague capability description ('technical rigor and verification') could overlap with general code analysis or debugging skills. The niche is identifiable but not sharply defined. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
100%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is an excellent skill that demonstrates strong technical writing. It provides actionable, concrete guidance with clear workflows, good/bad examples, and explicit validation steps. The content respects Claude's intelligence while adding genuine value through specific patterns and decision frameworks for handling code review feedback.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is lean and efficient, using structured patterns, tables, and examples without explaining concepts Claude already knows. Every section serves a purpose with no padding or unnecessary context. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete patterns, specific examples with good/bad comparisons, exact commands (gh api), and clear decision trees. The guidance is immediately executable with copy-paste ready patterns. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequential workflows with explicit validation checkpoints (VERIFY step, test each fix, clarify before implementing). The multi-step processes include feedback loops and error recovery paths. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized with clear sections, appropriate use of headers, tables for quick reference, and collapsible patterns. Content is appropriately structured for a single-file skill without needing external references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.